|
“But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn
first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their
own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this
is pleasing to God.” –
1 Timothy 5:4
I know, I know, God has no place in public policy, though with the
population rapidly aging, most of us will have kin requiring
long-term care or be in need ourselves. If not God, someone has to
work up a plan.
I do not want to be a burden to my children when I grow old. I’d
much rather be a burden to them now while I can enjoy it, and when
they might benefit from my sage advice and the limits I place on
their personal activities. The Good Book advises
“After all, children should not have to save up for their parents,
but parents for their children,” so the kids are more of a
retirement safety net anyway.
Although there are times when justice seems to demand I age into as
big a drain as possible, I prefer to plan for my own future. My
wife and I work to provide our children the best education we can
now and will help with college. After that, the best we can do for
them is to fund our own retirement. When we check out, I expect the
bills to be paid from what remains and the kids to get the
leftovers.
The government seems to agree. “Estate recovery” has been part of
the Medicaid program since 1965, though only about half the states
enforced it before Congress tightened the rules in 1993. Under this
provision, unpaid costs of long-term care are recovered from an
individual’s estate after they have passed on. Liens may be placed
on recipients’ homes, however they cannot be forced out while
living. Three states refuse to enforce the law and others are none
too happy about it.
For instance,
USA Today reports a fuss over the estate of an 85-year-old West
Virginia woman who willed her home to her niece. The woman also ran
up a $51,000 nursing home bill, paid by Medicaid. Medicaid wants
the house sold for reimbursement; the niece wants the house.
The state’s attorney general, who is suing to overturn the law,
believes “This is not just an economic issue; this is a cultural
issue … Part of our ethic is work hard, do well, save and pass on
to your progeny the results of your labor. This defeats that
proposition.”
Fine, dandy, and sugar cane candy, but the same heritage requires us
to care for our families and ourselves. There is arguably
compassion in a law that prevents folks from losing their homes
during their lifetime, which covers costs for those with no other
means. The system could certainly be made more equitable, yet I’m
not sure why it should be in the business of guaranteeing
inheritances. In any event, the bigger question is with whom the
obligation of compassion lays.
More and more the answer seems to be “someone else.” This is the
easy answer, however many religious traditions plop that duty
squarely on the shoulders of individuals. Jesus had a little advice
for bureaucrats, but much to say to you and me. It is we who were
told to feed the poor, visit the prisoners, to give one cloak if we
have two. It is we who are to honor our parents and love our
brothers and sisters.
I have no gripe with programs that help folks with
limited resources, whose families cannot, or will not, help. This
is a mark of a compassionate society, but if we were more caring and
responsible as people, society’s help might be in less demand.
|
